I can't think of a clearer example of "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy than exposing America's civilian and military defenses to terrorist scrutiny and exploitation. What is the difference between the New York Times latest "expose" on the National Security Agency's terrorist monitoring, and a soldier who alerts the enemy so that his fellow soldiers can be ambushed, captured or killed?
The New York Times seems to think that it is a "crime against humanity" when terrorist sympathizers in America have telephone calls to their terrorist buddies back home in the Mideast monitored. "Oh, that evil President Bush, trying to make it more difficult for Satan's little minions to do their work!"
TRENDING: 'Art of the Deal': How Trump turns COVID issue into 'win-win'
Yes, it's a real outrage.
The Times' latest plan for America losing the war involves yet another use of "anonymous sources," something you would think the Times had had its fill of with now "retired" reporter Judith Miller. Not even close.
Big media is addicted to anonymous sources. This one is either in Congress (most likely a senior staffer), is part of the executive branch and works in the intelligence bureaucracy, or least likely – is in the judiciary on the special FISA intelligence wiretapping court.
The problem is – the source signed a piece of paper promising to keep secret information secret. He or she did this as a condition of employment in the secret world. This tradeoff is necessary because when intelligence sources become public they tend to either die or dry up. Violating this agreement – either by giving secret information to those not likewise authorized to receive it, and who have a need to know to perform their jobs – would subject the source to a prison sentence.
Most members of the public – which includes reporters, editors and publishers – have never signed such a piece of paper. If they receive secret (classified) material, they bear only the moral obligation of not disseminating it and returning it. If, however, they pass this information on to our nation's enemies, they may well be guilty of treason.
It's time to find out. In the pre-Internet newspaper world, one could make the argument that since most newspapers did not routinely circulate outside of the country, publication of secret information was solely to inform the electorate – not to aid the enemy.
In today's wired world, that argument is impossible. Al-Qaida and its supporting terrorist organizations in Afghanistan, Iraq and other terrorist strongholds routinely use the Internet both to receive information and to communicate with the outside world. The New York Times could not have any more effectively delivered critical defense information that has prevented attacks in the United States and that weakens our military defenses, had they hand delivered it to bin Laden's cave.
Sedition and treason are popular pastimes of the political left in America. They name their radio shows and their rock bands after them. This is so because America allows an unprecedented amount of self-criticism by its citizens.
Yet the issue with the "paper of record" and its Big Media allies goes far deeper. Senior editors, select reporters, and the publisher are attempting to communicate an unambiguous message to the government of the United States. That message is, "You cannot prosecute a war or engage in a foreign policy with which we disagree."
The fact of the matter is that the Sulzberger family intends to teach the Bush administration a lesson. They don't care how many people like you and me are blown apart in airplanes or shopping malls because of their actions. They don't care how many American soldiers are killed or maimed on the battlefield because of their actions. They don't care how many children will grow up without one or both parents because of their actions. All they care about is their power.
Mr. President, order the FBI to seize their computers and notebooks. Follow the links back to those "anonymous sources" who think their next promotion in a Democrat administration is worth the life of one single American soldier on the battlefield of Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else in the world. Line them up and put them all in front of a jury of ordinary American citizens – then let them explain why they are so big and important that treason's just another day's work for them, and the little people are expendable – because we don't really matter. After that, let them wipe the stain of treason from their family names.
Where are the treason prosecutions?